Tag-Archive for » law «

Just a Few Additions

Monday, May 20th, 2013 | Author:

For the law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.  Hebrews 10:1  NASB

Only/and – At least they had the decency to put the words in italics.  The translators have added a few words here, namely, “only” and “and.”  I suppose they thought it best in order to help their English readers continue to believe that the Law no longer applies.  After all, the Law is only a shadow, right?  But now you realize that these words are not in the Greek text (it really makes no difference that that ESV adds “but” instead of “only”).  The author of Hebrews does not contrast something that isn’t real (a shadow) with something that is (the good things to come).  He merely points out that a shadow, which is quite real, isn’t the full representation of the object that casts the shadow.  If you thought shadows were not real, try standing in the Arizona sun rather than looking for shade.  The law is real; it just isn’t the fullest representation of what causes it to be.

What is the full representation that produces the real shadow of the Law?  Ah, the completed restoration of fellowship with God, the place and time where all serve Him from the heart without need of instruction, the presence of the final expression of the Kingdom.  In the meanwhile, shadows will have to do.  Shadows might not be quite as effective as indoor air conditioning, but they are certainly useful when you need to get out of the heat.  And until you go indoors, shadows are particularly important.

So the Author of Hebrews points out that “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin,” but that doesn’t mean they have no place at all.  They represent a greater reality, the final removal of the guilt of sin and its consequences in the full scope of Yeshua’s sacrifice, death and resurrection.  When you stand in the shade, you find temporary relief but you still long to get into air-conditioned comfort.

Yeshua comes to complete the full process of salvation, a process that addressed both our defilement (guilt) and the resulting punishment (death).  But even that isn’t the end of the story.  Yeshua’s death and resurrection are the first fruits of the Kingdom, not the final chapter.  His death and resurrection guarantee that God’s promise to restore His chosen is a reality.  The resurrection proves that death isn’t the end.  The resurrection points us toward a time when God will once again rule over all creation as the one and only acknowledged Lord of life.  Because He died and rose again, we have an eternal hope.

But in the meanwhile, shade is a wonderful thing.  Instructions about living that please our Lord and Master are essential, useful and freeing.  “Only” a shadow?  Tell that to the man who is dying of thirst in the desert.  Oh yes, and the word “shadow” (skia) is first in the Greek sentence, the position of emphasis, not the place of casual dismissal.

Topical Index:  only, shadow, skio, law, Hebrew 10:1

CORRECTION:  Yesterday in my announcement about Israel 2014, I said we were going to Petros.  Of course, I meant to type PETRA.  Here’s the link if you are coming along.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , ,  | 6 Comments

The Case Law God

Tuesday, April 02nd, 2013 | Author:

. . . that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.  Romans 3:26  ESV

Just – In our thinking, justice means following the rule of law.  But in the ancient Near East, justice is conformity to prior paradigm cases and traditions.  In our world, a legal structure exists that can be interpreted, modified or expanded.  There is no legal structure in the ancient Near East.  Instead, these cultures viewed justice as a sequence of case-law examples which act as models for current circumstances.  In the ancient Near East, law does not exist in abstraction.  Law is always found in practical traditions.  “Today we think of justice as that which conforms to the law.  For them justice was that which conformed to traditions reflected in the paradigms.”[1]

Mendenhall suggested that Israel was not led by a system of legal prescriptions enforced by social control.  That’s the way we think of the relationship between justice and law.  But ancient Israel was a covenant community.  Its foundation was based in values, not controls.  The values incorporated in God’s love for His people are expressed in the desire to serve Him according to His wishes.  This is not the same as viewing the commandments as if they were societal enforced regulations.  In other words, the reason the covenant community adopts the commandments as obligatory is not because God is a law-giver but because God is a lover.

For just one minute, consider what this means for our interpretation of Scripture.  People often ask me why Sunday can’t be honored as the Sabbath.  Why can’t we just choose a day that fits into our culture?  The answer is history, not legislation.  The Ten Commandments include honoring the Shabbat.  If I am grafted into the commonwealth of Israel, then I adopt its traditions as my practice.  I follow its “laws,” that is, the way that Israel does things.  And the way Israel does things is determined by the way Israel has always done things, namely, following the ways of the case-law God.  Israel’s practices set the paradigm for my practices.  It’s not a matter of governing rules.  It is a matter of community continuity.

If I want to be Christian, I adopt a different set of traditions.  I worship on Sunday.  I celebrate Christmas and Easter.  I observe Lent.  I say certain creeds and use certain prayers.  I adapt my way of doing things to the Christian way of doing things.  The issue is not grace versus law because it was never about “no rules” versus “rules.”  It is about which set of paradigm cases govern my behavior.  Once we realize that all religions adopt certain paradigm standards of behavior, we no longer see any point in arguing over grace and law.  The discussion turns to which paradigm cases set the biblical behavior patterns and which do not.  If my behavior is based in the biblical paradigms, then I am a follower of the YHWH of Scripture.  If they do not, then I am not.  I might be a follower of some other version of YHWH or even of another god, but I can’t claim that I am a follower of YHWH of Scripture.  My behavior says otherwise.

It comes down to this:  do I accept and follow the paradigm cases of Scripture or do I follow the case examples of some other origin?  The question is the same whether I claim to be Christian, Jewish or Messianic.  Sort out the origin of the traditions and then decide.

Topical Index:  just, dike, law, tradition, paradigm, Romans 3:26


[1] John Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, p. 291.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 5 Comments

Holy Contradiction, Batman!

Saturday, March 30th, 2013 | Author:

For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the Law, to perform them.”  Galatians 3:10  NASB

Works of the Law – Most Christians are taught that Paul converted to Christianity.  They believe that he left the Law behind as outmoded because Jesus “fulfilled” the Law and introduced the era of grace.  This passage from Galatians is typically one of the proof texts used to show that no man can keep the Law, that the Law is a curse and is therefore not part of the new life in Christ.  But read this again!  Paul cites Deuteronomy 27:26 as a proof that the curse falls on those who do not keep the Law, not on those who do keep the Law.  Something is really strange about Paul’s argument here.  First he says that anyone under the “works of the Law” is cursed and then he says that the curse applies to anyone who doesn’t keep the Law.  Is Paul confused?  Is he contradicting himself?

The way most Christians read this verse makes it appear as a straightforward contradiction.  Step 1:  Everyone under the works of the Law is cursed.  This implies that the Law itself is a very bad thing.  But, Step 2:  Everyone who doesn’t do what the Law says is cursed.  This implies that those who keep the Law are doing great and the Law is a very good thing.  So which is it?  The answer is found in the Paul’s technical phrase “works of the Law.”  Did you notice that Paul doesn’t say, “As many as are of the Law are cursed”?  He uses the phrase “works of the Law.”  Since Paul cites Deuteronomy as his authority that keeping the Law is a good thing, his phrase “works of the Law” must mean something other than “keeping the Law.”  Otherwise Paul’s words are contradictory.

What does “works of the Law” mean?  Paul uses this phrase to describe the legalists.  These are men from Jerusalem who have come to Galatia to argue that in order to be a follower of the Jewish God YHWH one must first become Jewish.  In other words,  these men are advocating the process of being a proselyte – circumcision, Torah study and baptism – before a person is acceptable to God.  The “works of the Law” is Paul’s way of describing those who claim that a believer must do something before God will offer grace.  Paul teaches that God freely offers grace to all – Jew and Gentile alike.  These men claim that a Gentile must become a Jew in order to find acceptance before YHWH.  Paul strenuously objects.  Why does Paul say that those who advocate “works of the Law” are cursed?  Because, in Paul’s view, they have already broken one of the fundamental commandments of Scripture.  He provides the reference for his assessment in the next verse.  “The righteous man shall live by faith” tells us that anyone who imposes additional requirements for acceptability, that is, anything except faith, has violated God’s instructions, and as Deuteronomy 27:26 shows, is therefore cursed.

Does this mean that Paul thinks that Law itself is a curse?  Hardly!  How could he believe that the Law itself is a curse when he expects us to keep it?  How could he claim that the Law is a bad thing when he clearly says, “The Law is holy, just and good” (Romans 7:12)?  It isn’t the Law that is the problem.  The problem is claiming that the Law is the basis of acceptance before God, that keeping the Law results in salvation.  The Judaizers (legalists) have confused grace and obedience.  Grace is God’s gift.  It is not earned.  It doesn’t require prior rituals or practices.  But grace is the gateway to obedience.  Once my life is committed to His Kingdom, I am expected to live according to His Kingdom rules, just as I would be expected to live by the rules of any kingdom where I am citizen.  When I live according to God’s rules, I am blessed.  When I don’t, I am cursed.  That’s what Deuteronomy teaches me. Perhaps the ESV’s addition to the English translation helps.  It reads, “For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse.”  If we understand this to mean that there are men who claim one is saved by doing what the Law requires, then we can see why Paul thinks these men are cursed.  They have broken one of the commandments with their very claim.

Paul clearly sees that none of my rule-keeping behavior has any affect of God’s grace freely offered to me, whether Jew or Gentile.  Obedience is devotion to God after salvation, not before.

The apparent contradiction in Paul comes from reading “works of the Law” as if it were the equivalent of “those who live according to the Law.”  But Paul never says that.  So where did we get that idea anyway?  Let’s go ask Augustine.

Topical Index:  law, works of the law, ergon nomou, Galatians 3:10

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 29 Comments

One for Many

Saturday, March 02nd, 2013 | Author:

Then what becomes of our boasting?  It is excluded.  By what law?  The law of works?  No, but by the law of faith.  Romans 3:27  ESV

Law – It is so unfortunate that Paul uses a word (nomos) that has become so stripped of its original complexity that we now think of its meaning basically as “rules.”  That often leaves us with the impression that Paul uses nomos as the equivalent of Torah, and for that reason, we often hear the claim that Paul did away with the obligation of Torah for believers.  But this simplification in translation belies the wide range of meanings associated with nomos in Paul’s Greek usage and forces us to think of only the single association nomos = torah.  What a disaster this has caused!  In the contemporary world of faith where very, very few believers have any real knowledge of the original languages and where most Christian worship is conducted without any deep ties to the original community, it’s no wonder that we tend to believe what we are told by the religious professionals.  We are no longer very Berean.  We just don’t look for ourselves.

Perhaps that’s why Michael Winger wrote his doctoral dissertation on the subject of Paul’s use of nomos.  Winger outlines seven different, and not necessarily related, uses of this word in Pauline material – and this does not include the rich metaphorical uses Paul also employs.  Winger’s list includes:  nomos as verbal (nomos is action), as a standard for judgment, as a guide for conduct, as something that controls or commands or rules, as an identification qualification of a particular people, as a source that is received, and as something that some people subject themselves to.  Some of these uses are related.  Some are not.  The question for any individual verse in Paul’s written material becomes:  Which use of nomos best fits the context of this text?  It is not always obvious.

I am not here to tell you what Paul means every time he writes the word nomos.  I am here to tell you that you simply cannot assume that the translation committee got it right or that you know what he means before you place his words in their context.  I am here to plead that you will continue to ask yourself, “What would this have meant if I understand the author to be a Torah-observant Jewish rabbi writing to Torah-observant Messianic synagogues?”  In other words, the assumption that Paul is writing to sola fide Christians is neither theologically warranted nor historically accurate.  Therefore, we will have to discover what Paul means from within Paul’s frame of reference.

Law and grace!  Oh, the cataclysm that this juxtaposition has perpetrated.  The needless agony and confusion that has been the result of Augustine’s view that Romans 7 is the standard account of conversion.

Let’s make a vow.  Let’s vow to stop all the argument and debate about the “law vs. grace” stuff until we really know how Paul uses nomos.  Let’s investigate and stop listening to the theological pundits (including me, by the way).  Let’s be Berean.

Topical Index:  law, nomos, Romans 3:27, Michael Winger

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 24 Comments

Jumper

Monday, February 11th, 2013 | Author:

What then?  Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?  May it never be!  Romans 6:15  NASB

What then? – “Questions of faith are not philosophical, sociological or psychological; they are intensely personal.  Everyone has to find his or her own way of dealing with them.  The point at which a person is ready for a change, for a jump, is when that person becomes aware of the existence of the question.  Once we become aware of the questions, this awareness pushes us toward the brink at which we have to leap.”[1]

I have often told my students, “You come to this class with all the answers.  The problem is you don’t know the questions.”  In this culture, the culture of Babylon and Greece, people feel incredibly uncomfortable when they do not have the answer.  We might say that pagan culture can be summarized as a quest for certainty apart from revelation.  Perhaps that’s why Steinsaltz notices that the real questions of life are intensely personal.  I have never met anyone who became a follower of YHWH on the basis of an intellectual argument, but I have known many who became followers when they were confronted by tragedy, conflict, uncertainty and deeply emotional issues.  Perhaps the most powerful evangelistic question is not “Where will you go if you died tomorrow?” but rather “How’s life working out for you?”

As a rabbi, even the enormous intellect of Paul finds its way into the very practical, intensely personal issues of life.  “What then?” (ti oun)[2] is Paul’s way of bringing a complex theological argument to a simple behavioral conclusion.  “Will you continue to sin just because you have experienced God’s grace?”  “Once you realize that God did not give you His favor based on your prior obedience, will you use that as an excuse to keep doing what you did before?”  The rhetorical question demands the answer, “Of course not!”  Actually, Paul says it even more forcefully.  “May it never ever be the case!”

Notice the required assumption behind this expected answer.  The reader must assume that Paul absolutely expects a believer to change behavior following the experience of grace.  There is no justification for the idea that grace does not result in new obedience.  Sin must stop!  Anyone who teaches that there is no post-grace requirement stands in opposition to Paul’s exhortation.

Practically, I’m guessing that all of us know this.  We don’t need to be reminded that sin must be eradicated from our walk.  We just don’t know how to do that.  Of course, Paul did know how.  He was a student of the Tanakh – of God’s instructions about how to stop sinning.  I suppose we could always follow Paul’s advice and his plan of action.  If you are ready to jump!

Topical Index:  what, ti, sin, grace, law, Romans 6:15

[1] Adin Steinsaltz, Simple Words, p. 82.

[2] ti oun is literally “So what?”  Perhaps the contemporary understanding of this phrase captures more of Paul’s vernacular.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 7 Comments

Master of the House

Wednesday, January 30th, 2013 | Author:

For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.  Romans 6:14  NASB

Not under law – How often we hear this verse as a proof text that the Torah has been set aside and no longer applies to Christian believers!  Many scholars make the claim.  “[Believers] must fight their battle in the certainty that their enemy has been overcome.  For they no longer live under the rule of the law, but under that of grace.”[1] “His death and resurrection has inaugurated the messianic age which superseded the age of law . . .”[2]  Even Leon Morris (whose work I so much admire) says, “Paul saw clearly that law and grace do not go together.”[3]  But how can this be when Paul calls the law “holy and good,” when Paul claims that he himself has always been obedient to Torah, and when Paul cites the Tanakh over and over as justification for his arguments?  Something doesn’t make sense.

Perhaps we can start by recognizing that Paul uses nomos (usually translated “law”) in many different ways.  It can mean “norm,” “standard,” “principle” and under specific conditions, “Torah,” “the Mosaic code” or “the Tanakh.”  The first distinction comes when Paul uses nomos with or without the definite article, ho.  With the definite article  (the law), Paul almost always has the Torah in mind.  Exactly what he means by Torah must also be investigated because in the first century the word torah could mean all of the Tanakh or the Pentateuch or the technical sense of the specific commands of the first five books of Scripture.  What is clear is that without the definite article the word nomos is more likely to mean “principle” or “norm,” in the general sense.  For example, there is no definite article in Romans 2:12, 14, 23, 25, 27; Romans 3:20, 21, 27, 28 31; Romans 4:12,14, 15; Romans 5:13, 20; Romans 6:14, 15.  Translations that add “the” to “law” in these verses are incorporating a technical distinction that Paul does not make.

Let’s apply this distinction to this verse.  Sin no longer has authority over the believer.  Why?  Because the believer has died to sin in the death of Yeshua.  In other words, since Yeshua has conquered death itself, the hallmark of sin’s power, sin no longer has dominion.  When the believer identifies with the death of Yeshua, he recognizes that his previous master no longer has authority over his life.  He now lives under the authority of Yeshua as his new master.  Paul exhorts believers to “consider themselves dead” to this old master.  Everything about the behavior of the believer changes because the old master no longer has control.  “You are no longer under the rule, the principle, the norm of the old master.  You are under grace.”

Does “grace” mean you have no rules for living?  No, of course not.  Grace comes with a different set of rules, the rules of the Kingdom.  The new master is your new King.  His Kingdom operates like any other kingdom.  There are expectations for those who claim to be citizens.  The norm of the new Kingdom is Torah, not freedom from all law.  The believer no longer is forced to live under the old principles, the old norm, the old rules.  He is now released from those so that he may live under the new norms of the new Kingdom.

Most of us treat Paul’s use of nomos as if it were consistently the same everywhere he employs it.  But this isn’t true.  Furthermore, nomos also has different nuances not found in the Hebrew word torah, and visa versa.  Much more care is required if we are going to unravel the presuppositions that Paul rightly expected of his first century Jewish/Gentile audience.  We aren’t that audience so we have to work much harder at understanding his meaning.  But once we do, oh how clearly he expresses what we have experienced to be the truth.  We are freed from that old master so that we may serve the new one.

Topical Index:  law, grace, master, Romans 6:14

 

[1] Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, p. 209.

[2] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, NICNT, p. 48.

[3] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, Eerdmans, p. 259.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 23 Comments

Situational Legislation

Monday, January 14th, 2013 | Author:

Of old I have known from Your testimonies that You have founded them forever.  Psalm 119:152  NASB

Founded – Why don’t you pick up your Bible and read this verse?  KJV, ESV, RSV and NKJV retain “testimonies.”  NLT uses “laws.”  NIV translates “statutes.”  Since the psalmist claims that these are established forever, it would be nice to know what they are, wouldn’t it?  The Hebrew word is ‘edoteka (“your testimonies”), from the singular noun ‘ed.  A little investigation reveals some important background.

‘ed is derived from the Hebrew root, ‘ud, a word that has cognates in many Semitic languages.  The root verb means “to repeat, to do again.”  According to TWOT, it has the sense of something permanent and is often used to describe something that endures, that occurs over and over, that continues.  You can see this nuance clearly in Psalm 84:4 and 105:33.  The derivative ‘ed occurs 67 times in the Tanakh.  It describes a witness, one who repeats the evidence over and over.  The testimony of such a witness is sure because it does not vary.  The word is found in Leviticus 5:1 and Proverbs 29:24, setting the conditions for reliable testimony.  Bearing false witness is one of the prohibitions of the Decalogue.  The community expects a witness to testify truly.  Since God’s word is never false, the psalmist can ascribe this term to His statements.  They have enduring truth.  In this psalm, the word is used 13 times in the plural form.  “It refers to the laws as given with divine warrant.”[1]  What God vouches to be true has a permanent character.  His statutes and ordinances last forever.  Human beings may offer testimony.  God offers permanent declarations.

We should notice that the psalmist says these ordinances have been founded forever.  The verb, yasad, reminds us that God’s statues are established by His faithful and true witness.  They endure because of their source.  As long as God is who He is, His declarations given in the covenant, whether written or oral, will remain.  They do not depend on the course of human history nor are they subject to alteration by human counsel.  They are as permanent and as stable as the One who declared them.  We can hardly imagine such permanence in our human idea of ordinances.  Our experience is the constant alteration, correction and addition to our laws.  Like the Medes and the Persians, we are the victims of case-by-case re-evaluation.  That’s why the laws change from culture to culture, nation to nation, community to community.  But if we think of the biblical idea of law, we will recognize that it stands on an entirely different base.  The permanence of God entails the permanence of His instructions.  Stability is the watchword of the biblical legal system.  How would you apply this idea to your own behavior?  Do you think of God’s instructions as permanently enduring, continuously applicable requirements?  Or do you imagine that biblical ordinances are culturally conditioned, subject to change as human life changes?  Do you live by a code that cannot change?

Topical Index: founded, yasad, testimonies, ‘ed, law, ordinance, Psalm 119:152

 

[1] TWOT, #1576, Vol. 2, p. 649

 

TODAY’S WORD 2012 Archive:  The entire edition of 2012 is now available as a WORD file download.  It is searchable for any word in the collection. Please click here to purchase.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , , ,  | 3 Comments

Utter Confusion

Friday, November 23rd, 2012 | Author:

But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?  James 2:20  NASB

You foolish fellow – Oswald Chambers’ devotional for October 28 makes an astounding statement.  “I am not saved by believing; I realize that I am saved by believing.  It is not repentance that saves me, repentance is a sign that I realize what God has done in Christ Jesus.”

Read that again!  Chambers wasn’t part of the contemporary “Hebrew roots” movement, but he understood Scripture.  I don’t “earn” my salvation because I believe.  God alone accomplishes my salvation through the manifestation of His Son and the atonement brought about by the sacrifice of the Lamb.  When I believe, I simply acknowledge that I now understand what God has already done.  Of course, to understand is the Hebrew equivalent of transforming my actions in accordance with my acknowledgment.  Until and unless my life changes as a result of this realization, I do not believe.  Believing is not a function of my saying something.  It is the acknowledgment seen in my doing something.  In Hebrew thought, to hear is to obey.  And in Hebrew thought, to believe is to do.

Now you know why the Hebraic consciousness of James draws the conclusion that if you do not do what God demands, then you do not believe.  Faith is living according to the insight that God has saved you.  Faith is doing what God asks because He has already shown favor toward you.  If I say that I have faith in YHWH, then I am saying that I live according to His commands.  If I do not live according to His commands, then in Hebrew thought I do not have faith.

This seems so patently obvious to James that he calls anyone who does not see the absolute unity of faith and “works” (actions) as “foolish.”  The word in Greek is kenos.  It literally means “empty,” and is found in the New Testament in phrases such as “empty words,” or “empty deceit.”  It implies something vain, useless and ineffective.  But it does not mean “stupid.”  “Foolish” always has moral connotation in Scripture.  Very clever, very intelligent men can still be fools if their lives do not live up to the standard of God’s holiness.  And this is James’ point.  The reason this fellow is foolish is that he attempts to draw a distinction between “faith” and “works,” a distinction that does not exist in Hebrew thought.

Notice how James introduces this idea.  In the prior verse he says, “You believe that God is one.  You do well;  . . .”  The unity of God is the foundation of James’ argument.  God is not divided between belief and action, faith and works.  So how can we even think that such a division exists in our lives as followers?  That would be kene – empty.  As Chambers says, “It is not Christ for me unless I am determined to have Christ formed in me.”

Topical Index: faith, works, law, grace, unity, James 2:20

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 15 Comments

True Religion (3)

Thursday, October 11th, 2012 | Author:

 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.  James 2:10 ESV

Rodney Baker has contributed several TW’s on Religion while I am in South Africa.

Whole – This is a favourite proof text for those who would claim that the Law is no longer applicable to believers under the “new covenant.” “See? If you keep one part of the law, you have to keep ALL of it. Therefore, you shouldn’t even try to keep part of it, because we’re now under grace, not under law.”

If I had $1 for every time I’d heard that, I wouldn’t be exactly rich but I’d sure have enough to buy a meal. And a decent one at that. But that is not at all what James is saying (in my view, anyway). It is easy to take the verse out of context and make it say what we want it to say, but let’s consider the context. James has just finished reminding us of the “law of liberty” (not the law of bondage) which requires that we take care of the widow, the poor and the orphan. Now, no Christian that I know would disagree with that concept. By that logic, should they not then be keeping the “whole law” if they keep even that part of it?

At the beginning of Chapter 2, then James continues to give examples (obviously pertinent to the congregation(s) to which he was writing) about favouring one person over another because of their wealth or social status, (of course, we would never do that in our churches, now would we?) culminating in verse 8 and 9:

James 2:8-9 ESV – [8] If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. [9] But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

James’ point is that, even if you are keeping the law perfectly, if you break one part of it you are guilty of all. Just like today. If you have a perfect driving record, yet you are detected driving faster than the speed limit, you are guilty of breaking “the law” and will be subject to the penalty proscribed under the law. James gives an example in verse 11, and then goes on to say this:

James 2:12-13 ESV – [12] So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. [13] For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

Did you get that? Speak and act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. If you fail to show mercy, if you fail to look after those in need when you have the capacity to do so (and you do, because God does), you are guilty of transgressing the law. Show mercy to your brothers and sisters. Meet their needs. If you want to be shown mercy, you’d better be merciful. Remember the parable of the unforgiving servant? I think James remembered that one. Oh, and that word, mercy? I think we’ve come across that one before. In the LXX it is eleos; in the Tanakh it is hesed.

It is not optional.

Topical Index:  eleos, mercy, hesed, James 2:10, law, whole

Rodney Baker, Adelaide

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 17 Comments

Free to Do

Saturday, October 06th, 2012 | Author:

But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.  James 1:25 ESV 

Looks - To look into the perfect law of liberty. Twice in his letter, James refers to the nomos eleutherias. Nomos is most commonly translated in the New Testament as Law, but is used in the LXX primarily for Torah – God’s instructions for living. James calls it the “law of liberty.”  Eleutheria is used in the LXX for huphshah. This is from the root haphash (he spread loosely, he freed) and means to be set free from slavery. One of the purposes of the Torah was to explain to a people who had grown up in slavery how to live as free people.

So what is it to “look into the perfect law”? The word “look” here is parakypto – to look intently at, from para – beside, near (a preposition indicating close proximity, according to Thayer’s Lexicon) and kypto – to stoop down, bend forward, to bow the head. Literally, to stoop down to look at. To study intently. Metaphorically it means to look carefully into or to become acquainted with something.

For James, to study is to do. One learns by doing, not by hearing (and that implies making mistakes, and learning from them, too). In doing, there is blessing. That is not to say that we obey to get the blessing – that is the wrong motivation. Blessing is the natural consequence of obedience.

And what sort of blessing? The ESV renders parameinas as “perseveres”; the NASB as “abides by it.”  Yet there is another aspect to this word. Yes, it means to remain near or alongside but it also carries the meaning of surviving, not perishing, enduring or remaining alive.

Think of the history of Israel. When the “Law of liberty” was given, where were they? In the wilderness, having just come out of Egypt. Obedience was truly a matter of survival – of life or death. According to James, ultimately it still is. The blessing is that of life, endurance, survival. For James, there was the threat of Rome (ultimately realised with the destruction of the Temple and the exile of Judah in 70 C.E). Today, there are other very real threats to our comfortable, western way of “life.”  It may well be that obedience to the commandments of God and total reliance on His faithfulness to keep His promises will again be a matter of life and death.

It reminds me of the words of Yeshua – “I came that they might have life and have it abundantly.”  Life.  Blessing.  Doing.  What will you do today?

Topical Index:  law, liberty, nomos eleutherias, look, parakypto

 

Today’s Edition is the work of Rodney Baker from Adelaide.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , ,  | 6 Comments
« Previous Entries